The ODT reports that A UN Human Rights Committee has ruled that nasty old New Zealand has breached the rights of Allan Dean, by not giving Dean a parole hearing three years earlier than it did. New Zealand has been instructed to offer a remedy for this breach and report back to the UN within 180 days on what it has done – persumably how much money Dean has been given.

So the UN has agreed with Tony Ellis that Allan Dean’s rights have been infringed by giving him preventative detention with a ten year non parole period. So what is Allan Dean’s record:

In 1959 indecently assaulted a youth in the dark

In 1960 indecently assaulted a solider

In 1964 indecently assaulted a 15 year old boy in a cinema

In 1966 sentenced to jail and warned of preventative detention if he reoffended

he then reoffended six months after being released

In 1970 sentenced to eight year’s jail for three indecent assaults on boys aged under 16, and warned of preventative detention if he reoffended

He then reoffended seven months after being released

In 1993 sentenced to jail and warned of preventative detention if he reoffended.

He reoffended three months later after being released

In 1995 indecently assaulted a 13 year old boy in a cinema by fondling his crotch

Admitted in 1995 that his offending was much more regular than his convictions indicated

Finally given preventative detention in 1995

The ODT continues:

Mr Ellis said in a statement that the only effective remedy was compensation.

A spokesman for Justice Minister Simon Power said the committee’s report was being considered.

Yes let us give money to the paedophile, as the nice UN wants us to. And also let him out of jail to molest more children. I mean he only got three explicit warnings about preventative detention, before it was imposed. And hell the Courts rushed to judgement – they rushed to preventative detention after only 36 years of offending.

Related posts:

This entry was posted on Saturday, May 9th, 2009 at 4:22 pm and is filed under New Zealand.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Oh for the love of… I spend much of my time (including on the previous thread!) arguing that a rising tide of crime isn’t about to engulf us and that all this “tough on law’n’order” posturing that goes on from politicians is just vote-grabbing scare-mongering and then these crackpot despots at the UN suggest we should be nicer to someone who’s obviously contributed a fair chunk of the last 40 years sex offending stats all by himself.

It’s nonsensical snivelling like this that causes a backlash against all suggestions to review cases because people tend to half-hear things and think “Yeah, look at the last guy we were supposed to feel sorry for…”

I know what report back I’d give the assorted minor potentates at the UN. All it would require is a photocopier, a bit of privacy and my backside.

They are horrible crimes to be sure, but even convicted criminals are granted rights and those rights are the only thing that protect all of us from mob rule and, perhaps much more importantly, an arbitrary and capricious government and judiciary. The rule of law is not something to arbitrarily withhold, even when paedophiles like Mr Dean are involved.

Graeme, the length of preventive detention is governed by the sentencing act s89(2):

The minimum period of imprisonment imposed under this section must be the longer of—
(a) the minimum period of imprisonment required to reflect the gravity of the offence; or
(b) the minimum period of imprisonment required for the purposes of the safety of the community in the light of the offender’s age and the risk posed by the offender to that safety at the time of sentencing.

Any sentence length due to the crimes act is only tangentially relevant, it seems.

If it was Saudi Arabia, he would be whipped 150 times and have his dick cut off. They should concentrate on that rather than complain that boys in New Zealand have had an extra 3 years free from this predator!

If these tossers want to tell us how to run things they should come over here, become citizens and stand for parliament on a “be nice to perverts” platform and when they win they can then, and only then, impose their twisted views on us.

And Fletch, it is worse than that. Not only are pedos given extra protection from so called “hate” crimes but the Dems rejected an amendment that would have given the same protection to veterans. This despite attacks on veterans because they are veterans. Orwell would turn in his grave.

Put this one down to witch in the UN and her band of socialist one world control freaks. Who signed us up to these UN conventions, three guesses. What party and what ideology has ruled us for the last nine years, this sort of bullshit is what they live for. Of course we will have the government saying, with head up their arses, that we must follow UN protocols we have signed up to, sound familiar. These human rights rules have more to do with silencing sovereign governments and imposing control over their populations.

David is right. This guy ought to be locked up forever. He isnt going to change and its the duty of the state to protect its citizens.
I wonder what New Zealands response will be. Hopefully like most UN things no state will comply by action only by word.

…those rights are the only thing that protect all of us from mob rule…

perhaps long ago the opponents of the mob possessed some common sense in their causes. Not any more. Now Rights movements seek only to attack society in a destructive sense and the mob has laid down it’s rope and crosses and is now capable of complex reasoning.

[DPF: Not at all. He is what preventive detention was designed for – to prevent future offending. He has molested boys for 40 years and is never going to stop.]

So sentence him to preventive detention, and whenever he comes up for parole, refuse it he still present a risk. I’m not saying he shouldn’t be inside longer than the seven years usually applicable to indecent assault, just the we should consider – and in all likelihood reject – release once the appropriate finite sentence is up.

Graeme, the length of preventive detention is governed by the sentencing act s89(2):

The minimum period of imprisonment imposed under this section must be the longer of—
(a) the minimum period of imprisonment required to reflect the gravity of the offence; or
(b) the minimum period of imprisonment required for the purposes of the safety of the community in the light of the offender’s age and the risk posed by the offender to that safety at the time of sentencing.

Any sentence length due to the crimes act is only tangentially relevant, it seems.

Yes. I imagine that’s the problem. If preventive detention is appropriate to protect the community, that should be the sentence; the non-parole period should be set by reference to the offending itself. Then, once they’ve done the time needed to punish them for the actual offending, they can be detained to protect the community as necessary – perhaps forever.

But if at some point they become safe for the community (to take an example where everyone can agree they’re safe – they’re paralysed from the neck down, or something), then they can be released once the punishment – decided by Parliament to be the appropriate punishment for the offence – is over.

If Allan Dean were a Jew there would be no favourable ruling such as this one. The NZ govt should tell the UN to Foxtrot Oscar (but in diplomatic parlance of course) while we run our democratic nation.

SImon Power should respond to the UN that it has paroled Mr Dean, given him a new identity complete with a new passport and a grant to start a new life, and as a condition of his parole made him a teacher at the UN school in New York.

If you read the article, the only fact that they are criticizing is that the non-parole period was longer than the maximum sentence for the offence.
Nowhere do they suggest that the preventive detention was unjust or that he should be freed. In fact they rebutted suggestions that the sentence was discriminatory against Dean.

Graeme:the non-parole period should be set by reference to the offending itself.

That’s not the criteria for setting the non-parole period for preventive detention under the sentencing act and the statute comes first, regardless of what you or Tony Ellis thinks it should be. If Allan Dean feels that his sentence of ten years non-parole was unduely harsh and beyond the bounds of legislation then the obvious solution was to appeal against the sentence rather than mount a bullshit appeal to the UN who were clearly hazy on the finer points of sentencing.

Thats cool ben, because you dont believe in mob rule you can let this man stay at your house when and if he paroled.
Im sure you wont have any objection to his being in your home, hell he may even be able to babysit your young fella so you and the wife can have a night out.

This ofender shouldnt be unhappy ,infact he should be gratefull as hell because if it was my child he educated,I would never have stopped untill his sex organs were dangling from the nearest flagpole.

That’s not the criteria for setting the non-parole period for preventive detention under the sentencing act and the statute comes first…

That was my point. This is exactly what was being criticised. It’s because the law says that that there’s a problem for the UN to look into in the first place.

If Allan Dean feels that his sentence of ten years non-parole was unduely harsh … then the obvious solution was to appeal against the sentence

He did.

rather than mount a bullshit appeal to the UN who were clearly hazy on the finer points of sentencing.

Hardly bull, given that he was successful. The problem isn’t that the sentence was “beyond the bounds of legislation”, the problem is that it was within the bounds of the legislation. This wasn’t an appeal to the UN, it was a complaint that the Government had violated his rights by passing this law and applying it to him in these circumstances. If the Government of New Zealand feels miffed at the United Nations, then the obvious solution is to not sign up to international human rights treaties promising to abide by international law, rather than mount some …

“If the Government of New Zealand feels miffed at the United Nations, then the obvious solution is to not sign up to international human rights treaties promising to abide by international law”

Sounds good to me, if the law is an ass, then international law must be a whole herd of ass’s.
Any “human rights” law that recomends the release of an un-reformed predator like this sack of sh!t is not worth the paper it is written on. What about the “rights” of the human(s) he decides to fiddle with next time? The UN is a crock.
UN directives like this go down about as well as a cold cup of sick.

meIf Allan Dean feels that his sentence of ten years non-parole was unduely harsh … then the obvious solution was to appeal against the sentence

YouHe did.

A complaint to the UN is hardly an appeal in the criminal justice system.

YouThis wasn’t an appeal to the UN, it was a complaint that the Government had violated his rights by passing this law and applying it to him in these circumstances.

You are confused. First you say what it’s dodgy to set a non-parole period of 10 years for a crime that only has a maximum sentence of 7 years and now when it’s been pointed out, that the legislation allows him to be sentenced to a longer period than the law requires for the actual offence, you now complain that his rights have been violated. How exactly?

It is not often that I yearn for the days of Sir Robert Muldoon however this is one of them, can you imagine how piggy would react if some jumped up little prick from the UN told him he had to pay a kiddie fucker compensation?

He sure as hell would not have reacted in the PC way that Simon Power has done.

No-one from the UN is suggesting paying compensation, only his lawyer is suggesting that.

All the UN committee has done is point out a technical inconsistency between international law and Dean’s treatment: ie he should have been given an earlier parole hearing, at which (of course) his parole application would be declined.

If we are going to lock Dean up and throw away the keys (and on the evidence presented I think we should) then it should be done according to the rules. That’s fine by me.

A complaint to the UN is hardly an appeal in the criminal justice system.

Quite right. An appeal to the Court of Appeal is an appeal. Allan Dean appealed to them. That appeal was turned down. Before one goes to the UN one must ‘exhaust’ all domestic remedies.

You are confused.

No, I am not.

First you say what it’s dodgy to set a non-parole period of 10 years for a crime that only has a maximum sentence of 7 years

Yes. The maximum sentence for indecent assault is 7 years. It is dodgy that sentencing laws allow for a non-parole period of 10 years for an offence that carries a maximum sentence of 7 years. It is that law which is dodgy.

and now when it’s been pointed out, that the legislation allows him to be sentenced to a longer period than the law requires for the actual offence…

I didn’t need that pointed out, it was something of which I was aware.

…you now complain that his rights have been violated. How exactly?

Because, having been convicted of indecent assault, he is permitted under international human rights laws New Zealand has agreed to abide by and implement, to have a parole application heard after the punishment component of his sentence is complete. He is not entitled to release, and can even be kept in prison indefinitely if he would present a risk, but every year after his punishment is over he is entitled to a hearing to determine if he should be paroled. The Parliament of New Zealand has declared that the maximum punishment for indecent assault is 7 years, so after 7 years, Dean should have had a parole hearing, and another at 8 years, and another at 9. He didn’t get these hearings, to which he is entitled (under international law), thus his rights were breached.

All the UN committee has done is point out a technical inconsistency between international law and Dean’s treatment.

The committee has done no such thing. All they have demonstrated is confusion about how Dean’s sentence was arrived at. International Law has more important things to worry about than the length of a pervert’s non-parole period.

Because, having been convicted of indecent assault, he is permitted under international human rights laws New Zealand has agreed to abide by and implement, to have a parole application heard after the punishment component of his sentence is complete.

Which is ten years. Where is the section of international law that controls the length of his non-parole sentence? Chapter and verse of the relevant convention.

The Parliament of New Zealand has declared that the maximum punishment for indecent assault is 7 years

Wrong. The maximum punishment is preventive detention, which is a life sentence with a minimum non-parole period set according to the criteria of the sentencing act. The maximum punishment can only be passed under strict criteria which Dean has fulfilled in spades. Ergo his rights has not been violated.

I am emphatically NOT saying paedophiles deserve to get reduced sentences, or that Dean is in any way deserving of an early release, etc. I am saying that the way to punish them is to not have judges go outside the law when the mob calls for blood. It is to get the law amended to give judges the right to put people like Dean away for a long time.

This ofender shouldnt be unhappy ,infact he should be gratefull as hell because if it was my child he educated,I would never have stopped untill his sex organs were dangling from the nearest flagpole.

side show bob (1396) Vote: 5 0 Says:
May 9th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Put this one down to witch in the UN and her band of socialist one world control freaks. Who signed us up to these UN conventions, three guesses. What party and what ideology has ruled us for the last nine years, this sort of bullshit is what they live for. Of course we will have the government saying, with head up their arses, that we must follow UN protocols we have signed up to, sound familiar. These human rights rules have more to do with silencing sovereign governments and imposing control over their populations.

At least get your history right. The applicable UN convention (The international Convention on Civil and Political Rights) is much older than that, first promulgated in 1966. New Zealand signed up to it under the leadership of Sir John Marshal in 1968 and it was ratified in 1978 under the leadership of Sir Robert Muldoon.

The convention came into force in 1976. Several web sites observe that NZ implemented the ICCPR indirectly through provisions in the Bill of Rights Act 1990 (and that was authored by Sir Geoffrey Palmer, I think).

“Several web sites observe that NZ implemented the ICCPR indirectly through provisions in the Bill of Rights Act 1990 (and that was authored by Sir Geoffrey Palmer, I think).”

True. Note, though, that the NZBORA had nothing to do with this decision. In fact, it was because there was no remedy available in NZ’s domestic legal system that this went to the UN Human Rights C’ssion.

Frankly, I agree with DPF on this one – the “breach of rights” is so technical/irrelevant as to warrant NZ’s govt responding “thanks very much, but we’ll just leave this as is.”

AG I agree with you and DPF. All I was pointing out was that SSB was flat out wrong in his apparent belief that our involvement in the convention was all down to Helen Clark.

The BORA seems to be the only direct link between the ICCPR and the NZ legal system … I would have expected therefore that any claim that Dean was hard done by in terms of the convention (and I don’t believe that for a second) ought to be tied in some way to a corresponding breach of the Bill of Rights.

I simply don’t understand Ellis’s role in this. He seems to have a long history of adopting weird and in my opinion, unsupportable interpretations of how the law requires us to treat offenders.

The BORA seems to be the only direct link between the ICCPR and the NZ legal system … I would have expected therefore that any claim that Dean was hard done by in terms of the convention (and I don’t believe that for a second) ought to be tied in some way to a corresponding breach of the Bill of Rights.

That would be the case in a New Zealand Court. However, as New Zealand has signed and ratified the ICCPR, and also ratified the first optional protocol to the ICCPR (which allows individuals to make complaints to the Human Rights Committee (not to be confused with the Human Rights Council)), the specific rights in that convention – even to the effect that they are not included in BORA are also actionable there.

[Ellis] seems to have a long history of adopting weird and in my opinion, unsupportable interpretations of how the law requires us to treat offenders.

Not entirely unsupportable. He has had some pretty major victories – Taito, Taunoa etc. And this one, of course. I think I was reasonably accepting that New Zealand law allowed/required the Courts to treat Dean this way, he just disagreed that international laws to which New Zealand had signed up allowed us to have national laws which treated him this way. A committee of human rights experts seems to have agreed (again, don’t confuse this body with the Human Rights Council…).

“I guess my major beef with Mr Ellis, is that I see no acknowledgment of the needs of the victims of these bastards.”

Not his job. Garth McVicar handles that aspect (and then some). Tony Ellis is that annoying bit of grit that gums up the machine, and that sometimes stops it from rolling over folks it shouldn’t. Which is, by definition, an unpopular role. But needed.

There is a worry here.
If taxpayer funds are used to compensate Allan Dean then there could be a huge change in attitude by New Zealand taxpayers.
Upon seeing their funds used in this manner it would then become encumbent upon them, as taxpayers, to cheat the system.
Our tax system is thoroughly dependent upon voluntary compliance. If that voluntary compliance is shot to pieces by giving taxpayer funds to a “kiddie fucker” then the economic security of our nation could be put at risk.
Mine is a weird way of looking at things, but this matter could become extremely serious.

“I guess my major beef with Mr Ellis, is that I see no acknowledgment of the needs of the victims of these bastards.”

Not his job. Garth McVicar handles that aspect (and then some). Tony Ellis is that annoying bit of grit that gums up the machine, and that sometimes stops it from rolling over folks it shouldn’t. Which is, by definition, an unpopular role. But needed.

I disagree. I do not have a problem with my taxes funding someone charged with the most atrocious. Any civilised country does this. And I have no problem in certain circumstances funding an appeal against conviction. What I, and I suspect many others have problem with funding these low lives trying to get a few years off their sentence because some other scum bag committed a even more atrocious crime.

It is not only the needs of the victim which need to be acknowledged but the needs of future victims. I wonder how Tony Ellis will sleep if he gets the scum bag out and there are more victims. I think probably okay considering the taxpayers money he is getting.

The solution is simple. If there is a legal argument that says these scum bags cannot be given a minimum sentence on preventive detention then change the law to make it clear they can.

What really frustrates me is that we are prepared to tell the worlds biggest superpower (and the country we should be aligning ourselves with), the USA, that they aren’t allowed their nuclear ships here, and yet we pander to the UN without the slightest bit of hesitation.

If they’re obliged to offer him a remedy, how about giving him a lolly ? Anyway, is this fucker still in jail right now ? If so, it’s irrelevent whether he should have got a parole hearing three years earlier than he did, because he obviously flunked the later one, so how could he have been ready for release even earlier ?

I have a simple solution to this – instead of making the non parole period for preventative detention shorter, make the maximum sentance for kiddy fiddling longer. No more inconsistent law, no problem.
And no, the prisoner should not get any compensation.

BOBBY,BOBBY BOBBY,dont flatteryourself,tell your point to his victims and see the impact an animals rights can have on young boys and men.

Mob rule, I must say you missed my point.

To clear up matters ,there wouldnt be a court case to answer too or in fact a UN to appeal to for I would hunt him for the rest of his days, so by your thinking, he would be best to go and stay in jail if he believed in the right to HIS life.

PS- Justify your argument to one of his victims , go on I dare you, then come back and preach to the mob.